Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
